Chamber and committees

Applications will be made for the additional funding and we will assess those on their merits. We use the term “adaptation”, but, in effect it is about protecting our communities against the risk of flooding, which is an important area of work. We need to put preventative money into that. Some of the work will be in relation to nature, so adaptations for flooding will be associated with blue and green infrastructure, which will have associated benefits. There are many examples of that happening all over Scotland. Some of the work might relate to hard infrastructure, which is obviously a lot more expensive. We will assess applications for funding on the basis of how they will use the funding and on the merits and efficacy of the measures for which they are seeking funding. On the way that I want to use the fund, it is important that we ask communities to apply for funding, because they know their areas best—they live in them and they see what is happening and where the issues are. It could be quite exciting to see the various projects that come out of this.

Although we are in the unfortunate situation of having to adapt to a changing climate, the adaptations and schemes associated with climate change adaptation and flood prevention, mitigation and adaptation are huge economic opportunities and huge drivers of job creation in Scotland and across the UK.

We do not put things that are going to be in the budget in the programme for government, but I have protected the nature restoration fund in my tenure, and I continue my championing of the nature restoration fund because it is magnificent and supports habitat restoration, species recovery and nature-based solutions. It gives funding streams to national parks and local authorities, but it also allows groups doing small-scale projects to apply for funding. Over the past few years, but particularly over the summer, I have been able to visit quite a few impressive projects that have used the nature restoration fund.

10:15

We talked about rivers. Because it is in the Highlands, Ariane Burgess will probably be aware of the River Peffery restoration project, which involved the remeandering of the Peffery near Dingwall. The nature restoration fund was critical to that. Work was done with local landowners and farmers to remeander the river. There was a flood prevention aspect to the project, which involved working with SEPA. The remeandering has resulted in greater biodiversity—someone said that it was the first time that they had ever seen trout in that part of the river, and it is only a year since that work was done. It was nature restoration funding that unlocked all those things.

There are other funding streams associated with biodiversity and nature—they do not all sit in the nature restoration fund, as important and brilliant as that is. There is the peatland restoration funding, the Scottish marine environmental enhancement fund, or SMEEF, as we call it, the agri-environment climate scheme and the forestry grant scheme, as well as the facility for investment-ready nature in Scotland, or FIRNS, programme, which I think I mentioned to Sanne Dijkstra-Downie in relation to what is happening in Inverleith park.

There are lots of different streams of work that have an impact on biodiversity, but to say that I am evangelical about the nature restoration fund is an understatement.

My initial reflection is that we exceeded last year’s target, which was great news. We have momentum, and we made the budget decision based on the fact that that level of funding was sufficient to cover the action that needed to be taken.

I am preaching to the converted, because you are heavily involved in the activity in this area, but, when it comes to peatland restoration, it is important that there is certainty of funding, year after year. Looking forward, I want to discuss with the Deputy First Minister which schemes will require funding, because funding commitments need to be made year on year, without any breaks. We made an assessment that the funding was adequate for the ambition that we have for this year. The target is based on realistic annual increases in the aim to balance emissions reduction.

I also want to mention how important other areas of funding across Government are to peatland restoration. I am thinking, in particular, of the funding associated with skills and with the building of new homes in rural areas. One of the issues when it comes to peatland restoration is having enough skilled people to do the work. Another stream is the funding that goes to crofters and farmers in relation to peatland restoration.

The peatland restoration fund is very important in providing core funding year on year, but it is also important that we consider other interventions that mean that people can diversify their income streams, get involved in projects and build them into their farm plans. That helps people who work in peatland restoration to have certainty of work year on year, which enables them to plan.

I think that we have a really good story to tell about what was done with regard to peatland last year. The assessment was that the budget for that was adequate in terms of the ambition to sustain that trajectory. Of course, we can decide to move money around in-year if we see underspends in some other areas.

I look forward to it.

Obviously, you do not need chapter and verse on how that flood prevention scheme has been put into smaller silos of work so that it can be done section by section. The money that we have put aside will probably be for smaller-scale flood prevention opportunities, because we give money to councils for flood prevention activity. The situation in Grangemouth is very complex. One of my reflections on the Grangemouth situation is that—if this is not too controversial—I would have expected by now to see more private contributions to efforts there. The burden should not fall only on the council. Big companies in Grangemouth, both long-standing and current, will benefit from any infrastructure that gets put in.

Absolutely. Public money alone is not going to restore Scotland’s peatlands.

I will just show off a little by pointing out that, at meetings held before the United Nations climate change conference of the parties in Rio last year, the Scottish Government was given an award for what it had done on the peatland code. Responsible private investment has a huge role to play in delivering peat restoration in Scotland, and we need to look at how we can ramp up the success that we have had with the peatland code to encourage more private finance into that space.

It is important to recognise that a lot of bodies in the philanthropic space do not know where to put their money, and we can provide those donors with a really good opportunity by encouraging them to invest in restoring Scotland’s peat. We just need to shout louder about that.

It has been good to see the peatland code getting international recognition, because our being on the international stage as a result of the Scottish Government’s involvement in the COP, whether it be the biodiversity or the climate COP, has allowed us to showcase what we are doing, to speak to international funders and actors in this space and to encourage them to assist us in what is going to be a fundamental piece of work—not just in addressing biodiversity loss, but in the sequestering, and avoiding the leakage, of carbon. That is going to help us to reach our net zero goals for 2045.

I see what you mean: the one-front-door approach. Sorry—I misunderstood your question. That is part of the simplification of access as well, which can only be a good thing.

I will need to take that away and dig into it so that I can give you a definitive answer. I will speak to my officials, find out the context and write to the committee.

Will we be nature positive by 2030? We are going to try our best to achieve that, and it is not just a Government endeavour; it is an endeavour of every part of society, including our local authorities, our commercial space and our community spaces.

We have the funding streams that are associated with improving biodiversity. I mentioned the nature restoration fund, and we have the nature 30 pilot sites. We have the commitment to 30 by 30; we are establishing a marine recovery fund; we have a consultation out this week on inshore marine protected areas; we introduced fishing management measures for our MPA network—I think that that was last year; we have £28 million to restore degraded peatlands; we have the water environment fund; and we have invested £40 million in repairing—and those are just the things in my portfolio. There are planning regulations that are associated with decisions about planning; there are planning reforms on the table; and there are also actions that are associated with the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2026.

Every sinew is being stretched to ensure that we deliver on the ambition. Will we do it? I hope so. If we do not, we need to continue to try and to not be disheartened.

There are an awful lot of stressors on nature that are outwith Scotland’s control, but we must do our best to plant the right types of trees and seagrass, restore the peatlands, protect our woodlands, protect and improve our river quality and, as Donald MacKinnon said, leverage private investment to augment what the Government can deliver. The Government cannot fund this work alone; there will have to be a whole-society drive to deliver on the ambition.

While the debate on rainforests was taking place, I was in the garden lobby. The Parliament hosted young activists from across Scotland who are concerned about the condition of Scotland’s seas and want biodiversity to be improved in our seas. I made a commitment to them that the Government would do everything in its power to make that a reality. It is a whole-society issue that cannot be determined by the Government alone; we all have to work towards it.

That is an example of why, once the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 was passed, there was a lot of work to be done in relation to the strategy and the code of practice on household waste recycling, which local authorities and other stakeholders were responsible for developing. What you have just described sounds fantastic, but there needs to be greater sharing of good practice between councils. You have also highlighted opportunities for sharing infrastructure. You have now got that on the record, which is good, because local councils will think, “Hang on a second—maybe we could be ramping that up.”

One interesting thing is that local authorities get additional money on top of what they receive through their settlement from the Scottish Government, because they also receive extended producer responsibility funding. That money is being given to them as a result of the producer-pays principle, and individual councils get told what they will receive. It is for to them to reduce their waste or look at innovative ways to bring down their waste streams, on top of what they are already doing. I recently asked my office to reach out to councils to ask them how they were spending that money, because I want a picture of some of the additional work that has been done and how they are using the funding. That does not come from the Scottish Government, but it is additional funding.

You have also pointed to why the code of practice on household waste recycling is so important, and why the mainstreaming of certain types of recycling across Scotland is important. There are some local authorities for which that is more difficult. Our island communities may find it more difficult to do some of the things that can be done in urban areas. We need to have consistent standards, and we need to have knowledge-sharing across local authorities. There will be different approaches in each council area, many of which are based on geography.

You have done two things by putting the issue on the record. First, councils that want to get rid of soft plastics and do not have that infrastructure need to get on the phone to Fife Council. Secondly, the Parliament needs to collect soft plastics and to make sure that they do not go into landfill, at the very least. That is a Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body decision.

What has also been interesting—this follows on from some of the discussions that we had on peatland restoration—is that the private sector, particularly supermarkets, is providing a route for consumers to recycle soft plastics, which is certainly making a difference. That is not before time, because they are the producers of most of the waste associated with soft plastics.

The code of practice on household waste recycling that is being formulated will set clear, consistent standards to improve recycling, cut emissions and deliver better, more consistent services across Scotland. I do not know whether Fife Council has, in discussions on the circular economy and waste strategies, offered up its infrastructure. We all know that, when investments are made in that sort of infrastructure, there are associated economies of scale. It is almost like feedstock—it is very important to consolidate feedstocks in order to ensure that the infrastructure pays for itself.

What you have highlighted is an example of where there can be a little more creative thinking between local authorities.

No, because, at the end of the last session of Parliament, I looked at that in depth with my officials and we worked with our colleagues in the water industry, and a number of the necessary regulatory interventions would not have to be in primary legislation. I am getting advice from my officials on exactly what we need to do to secure the outcomes associated with infrastructure upgrade. We need to modernise our sewer network and should divert as many of our efforts as possible into doing that.

10:45

We regularly consider water-related policies to ensure that they meet the public’s expectations. I believe that we should use the legislative framework that we already have to support improvements in the water environment rather than introduce primary legislation. There are a number of reasons for that. First, we do not want to introduce primary legislation for its own sake, because that takes time and it is obviously better to do things more quickly if we can. We also need to consider the implications of the European Union urban wastewater treatment directive. That is an ongoing and complex piece of work that might require a lot of funding. I need to do an analysis of any of the commitments that we want to make in relation to that directive.

Our objectives for the next regulatory period mean that Scottish Water must provide public-facing access to data on all overflows and intermittent discharges in its network. That has been done. I note that, in the past 10 years, £2.7 billion has already been invested in improving the public sewer system and infrastructure. You will not see such investment being done by private water companies—you do not see that level of investment in parts of the UK where the water industry has been privatised. There is a lot more work to do, and a lot more investment has to be made, but one of the many advantages of having a public water body such as Scottish Water is that not one penny goes to shareholders; it all goes back into improving the infrastructure. As I say, an awful lot more money needs to go back into improving the infrastructure, but £2.7 billion has already been invested over the past 10 years. There has been substantial investment.

Of course, as SEPA discovers issues across the country, their causes must be investigated. Some of the issues might involve the need for investment in the sewer system, but a large investment has already been made, and it is of a size that you will not see in areas where there are private water companies.